Yeah, sorry about that. I didn't catch it because obviously I've had to start a session to get the stats in the first place. I've replaced it with a simplified version instead.
Are you kidding? If they had to resort to calling foreigners at random (India should be quite good at this) in search of volunteers, and happened upon me, I'd be up there in a shot. I'd sell the maximum removable quantity of my organs for a shot at standing on the moon, even if I had to take that shot on an overcrowded Indian vehicle that could explode unexpectedly at any moment.
What the hell do you think you're doing? You can't say that! It's right there in the name: Patriot Act. If you badmouth the Patriot Act, you're a traitor. It's right there in the name!
A seven year old Red Hat installation has absolutely nothing to do with a modern mainstream distro. And judging by how outdated your version of OpenOffice is, your system is just as dead in the water as Windows 98.
Or are you suggesting that this supposed influx of Win9x refugees will trawl mirror sites for ISOs half a decade old?
Fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) is a sales or marketing strategy of disseminating negative (and vague) information on a competitor's product. The term originated to describe misinformation tactics in the computer hardware industry and has since been used more broadly. FUD is a manifestation of the appeal to fear.
It's a good thing that there's only a handful of people spouting this bullshit, and that it's only Slashdot , or I'd be losing a lot of faith in Linux users right now.
I was referring to the cry of FUD and the accusation of astroturfing, not hardware support. If you were paying any attention, you'd have noticed that my choice of the word 'accusation' doesn't really fit into the topic of hardware support, and then maybe you wouldn't have come wading in with all that judgemental bullshit, completely missing my point.
By the way, deeming a person to be an idiot on the basis of one post, especially on a topic like this, especially when you aren't even paying attention enough to get the context of the remarks, is pretty fucking stupid*.
* notice how my adjective applies to the decision, not the person?
Seriously, my PIII laptop has 'Designed for Windows 98' on it, and can run Windows 2000 and Windows XP just fine, but the mainstream Linux distros are too bloaty to even install: the Ubuntu and Fedora installers literally hang, and SUSE and Mandriva are too slow even on my other machine in the +2GHz range.
Linux can't pick up the slack when MS turns off support for old OSes, because the top Linux distros stopped catering for that level of hardware years ago. And with KDE/GNOME being so indispensable for everyday desktop usage, their near-elitist disregard for anything below mid-high range hardware is infuriating.
In fact, here is the quote ZDNet is using to support their claim:
"I suspect that Microsoft's original extension of the Windows 98 support date a couple of years ago was, in part, to make sure Linux was not brought in to replace these systems."
Words cannot express just how much of a non-story this is.
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks (x) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it ( ) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers (x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email (x) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Microsoft ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Yahoo ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation (x) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free (x) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid company for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
Less regulation would give people more of a choice so that if they are big YouTube fans and their current ISP is making it hard for them to watch videos on YouTube, then they could switch to some other ISP that is not doing that. If YouTube has such huge benefit to consumers, then it would be very profitable for a compettitor to offer YouTube enabled service.
This just in. You completely missed the point of net neutrality. What about the little guy who nobody's heard of? Nobody is going to be switching ISPs over their access some new site that their friends told them about. Thus, the internet stagnates, except of course for the competing online stores and news services provided by the telcos themselves.
That bullcrap you describe there isn't a 'choice' anyway.
My phone connection is being degraded in favour of the rich guy down the street! Hurray! Now I have more choice in that I can switch to another company!
You are a buffoon. Please turn yourself in at your earliest convenience so that you can be voted into some part of the government.
Nobody cares? Believe me, if nobody cared, there'd be no pageviews on the ads on these stories, and they would stop posting them. But no, what we actually have is plenty of clicks, and plenty of discussion, so I guess some people do care.
I do love a good 'FUCK YOU I HATE THIS BULLSHIT WEBSITE I'M GOING TO DIGG NOW' farewell post, though.
I can remember as far back as Fifa '99 having support for at least four players at once. It was pretty fun.
All you need in order to have this kind of thing online is game join system similar to CounterStrike. You find a game with space on a team, and join. Obviously, unlike CS, you'd be taking partial control over existing players, instead of creating one new one, but the base concept is the same.
Add in a grouping system like Halo 2, and you can get a group of friends together and either create your own new game or go and fill out an existing team.
This article seems to be saying that that's not already possible. Isn't it? I've only ever played sports games offline, so I really know.
I don't know if you realise it, but according to your model, our two biggest threats for the next 200 years can be solved by creating a huge internationally owned battery of nuclear missiles.
vast armies of stupid belligerent parasites with their hands out demanding to be fed and clothed by a shrinking pool of intelligent functional human beings
This little question has really brought out the nutters.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah right, I'm sure CmdrTaco - founder and overlord of Slashdot - is just dying to be accepted as a true member of the 'nerd crowd' at Slashdot.
Yeah, sorry about that. I didn't catch it because obviously I've had to start a session to get the stats in the first place. I've replaced it with a simplified version instead.
Full browser stats
Full OS stats
Are you kidding? If they had to resort to calling foreigners at random (India should be quite good at this) in search of volunteers, and happened upon me, I'd be up there in a shot. I'd sell the maximum removable quantity of my organs for a shot at standing on the moon, even if I had to take that shot on an overcrowded Indian vehicle that could explode unexpectedly at any moment.
What the hell do you think you're doing? You can't say that!
It's right there in the name: Patriot Act.
If you badmouth the Patriot Act, you're a traitor. It's right there in the name!
Sir, you are speaking rot.
A seven year old Red Hat installation has absolutely nothing to do with a modern mainstream distro. And judging by how outdated your version of OpenOffice is, your system is just as dead in the water as Windows 98.
Or are you suggesting that this supposed influx of Win9x refugees will trawl mirror sites for ISOs half a decade old?
The link didn't copy the first time
It's a good thing that there's only a handful of people spouting this bullshit, and that it's only Slashdot , or I'd be losing a lot of faith in Linux users right now.
I was referring to the cry of FUD and the accusation of astroturfing, not hardware support. If you were paying any attention, you'd have noticed that my choice of the word 'accusation' doesn't really fit into the topic of hardware support, and then maybe you wouldn't have come wading in with all that judgemental bullshit, completely missing my point.
By the way, deeming a person to be an idiot on the basis of one post, especially on a topic like this, especially when you aren't even paying attention enough to get the context of the remarks, is pretty fucking stupid*.
* notice how my adjective applies to the decision, not the person?
Wrong again, fatty. I hate everything equally.
First, a rewrite. Changes are highlighted in bold:
An anonymous reader writesSeriously, my PIII laptop has 'Designed for Windows 98' on it, and can run Windows 2000 and Windows XP just fine, but the mainstream Linux distros are too bloaty to even install: the Ubuntu and Fedora installers literally hang, and SUSE and Mandriva are too slow even on my other machine in the +2GHz range.
Linux can't pick up the slack when MS turns off support for old OSes, because the top Linux distros stopped catering for that level of hardware years ago. And with KDE/GNOME being so indispensable for everyday desktop usage, their near-elitist disregard for anything below mid-high range hardware is infuriating.
In fact, here is the quote ZDNet is using to support their claim:
Words cannot express just how much of a non-story this is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Troll#Attent ion-seeking_trolls
Troll article -> Slashdot links to it -> Lots of pageviews -> More ad clicks -> Profit
Your company advocates a
(*) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
(x) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
(x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
(x) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Microsoft
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Yahoo
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
(x) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
(x) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid company for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
TFM at your link is outdated as of kernel 2.6.10. There is a patch available, but you need to read the 30-page forum discussion first: http://forums.linuxcdroms.com/forum.php?topic=3454 5432&page=2&highlight=patch#324234
I can find five.
This just in. You completely missed the point of net neutrality. What about the little guy who nobody's heard of? Nobody is going to be switching ISPs over their access some new site that their friends told them about. Thus, the internet stagnates, except of course for the competing online stores and news services provided by the telcos themselves.
That bullcrap you describe there isn't a 'choice' anyway.
You are a buffoon. Please turn yourself in at your earliest convenience so that you can be voted into some part of the government.Nobody cares? Believe me, if nobody cared, there'd be no pageviews on the ads on these stories, and they would stop posting them. But no, what we actually have is plenty of clicks, and plenty of discussion, so I guess some people do care.
I do love a good 'FUCK YOU I HATE THIS BULLSHIT WEBSITE I'M GOING TO DIGG NOW' farewell post, though.
I can remember as far back as Fifa '99 having support for at least four players at once. It was pretty fun.
All you need in order to have this kind of thing online is game join system similar to CounterStrike. You find a game with space on a team, and join. Obviously, unlike CS, you'd be taking partial control over existing players, instead of creating one new one, but the base concept is the same.
Add in a grouping system like Halo 2, and you can get a group of friends together and either create your own new game or go and fill out an existing team.
This article seems to be saying that that's not already possible. Isn't it? I've only ever played sports games offline, so I really know.
I don't know if you realise it, but according to your model, our two biggest threats for the next 200 years can be solved by creating a huge internationally owned battery of nuclear missiles.
Woot!
Back down 't mine? Bugger!